PDA

View Full Version : From Audacity to Animosity: No president has alienated his base the way Obama has.


andymays
12-11-2010, 08:39 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009943102291486.html?m od=rss_opinion_main

Excerpt:

We have not in our lifetimes seen a president in this position. He spent his first year losing the center, which elected him, and his second losing his base, which is supposed to provide his troops. There isn't much left to lose! Which may explain Tuesday's press conference.

Excerpt:

Instead Mr. Obama said, essentially, that he hates the deal he just agreed to, hates the people he made the deal with, and hates even more the people who'll criticize it. His statement was startling in the breadth of its animosity. Republicans are "hostage takers" who worship a "holy grail" of "tax cuts for the wealthy." "That seems to be their central economic doctrine."

Spiderman
12-11-2010, 09:01 AM
He should have spoken to the people while negotiating. Polls indicate that 65% do not want tax breaks for millionaires. Presenting a "take it or leave it," deal that is anti-promises of his campaign is impossible to accept.

There is no deficit reduction in the deal; a portion, reduction of payroll tax mitigates against funding Social Security; the whole of the deal eliminates the Simpson-Bowles plan for deficit reduction; there is no allocation for senior citizens.

He has veto power and could use that to establish new tax regulations. A new tax cut law could be enacted via the Reconciliation process.

People want a leader who has principles. His negotiated deal was a cave-in and cannot be abided.

andymays
12-11-2010, 09:09 AM
He should have spoken to the people while negotiating. Polls indicate that 65% do not want tax breaks for millionaires. Presenting a "take it or leave it," deal that is anti-promises of his campaign is impossible to accept.

There is no deficit reduction in the deal; a portion, reduction of payroll tax mitigates against funding Social Security; the whole of the deal eliminates the Simpson-Bowles plan for deficit reduction; there is no allocation for senior citizens.

He has veto power and could use that to establish new tax regulations. A new tax cut law could be enacted via the Reconciliation process.

People want a leader who has principles. His negotiated deal was a cave-in and cannot be abided.

Charles Krauthammer - Swindle of the year

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120904472.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

Excerpt:

Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 - and House Democrats don't have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years - which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?

Spiderman
12-11-2010, 10:02 AM
Charles Krauthammer - Swindle of the year

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120904472.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

Excerpt:

Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 - and House Democrats don't have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years - which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?
Bold type was not in the article. I do hope that it works but, without further planning, it won't.

Do you see anything wrong with,". . .It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years"? Understand that the WH and Conservative press are working overtime. Did you click the tab, Biography, above the author's byline? Yup, Weekly Standard and New Republic contributor, same as David Brooks is to The New York Times.

JustRalph
12-11-2010, 10:52 AM
his base will come back sucking up to him in waves in 2012

it's all they know............

Greyfox
12-11-2010, 11:03 AM
his base will come back sucking up to him in waves in 2012

it's all they know............

:ThmbUp: I agree.
This President is the worst in my memory.
However, he is "a charismatic evangelist" and can talk the birds out of the trees.
In that respect, he's a dangerous threat to continue after 2012 as voters have short term memories and are susceptible to baffle garb babble.
Many electors will ignore the fact that he's mortgaged the future.

JustRalph
12-11-2010, 11:34 AM
After my last post, I ran into this one......at DU

They are already making excuses for the "Messiah"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x558903

jognlope
12-11-2010, 11:34 AM
They were having fun with Krauthammer's column on Christ Matthews. I happened to mosey over from the two opinions in the NY Times the same day by Klugman and Richard Brooks, it's what it is, opinion. I go with Bill in the end.

jognlope
12-11-2010, 11:36 AM
I AM NOT watching Boehner cry with Leslie Stahl. Too stressful. The guy is clinically depressed.

bigmack
12-11-2010, 12:20 PM
His negotiated deal was a cave-in and cannot be abided.
Has it occurred to you that the ducks on your side of this little 'fight' are as lamb as they get and that it will pass like butter in January? This dopey show is all for naught.

I heard Tom Harkin say the other day "The President & the Republicans made a deal without us even being able to agree on it or able to read it. This is not the way things are done in Washington" :lol:

johnhannibalsmith
12-11-2010, 12:21 PM
I AM NOT watching Boehner cry with Leslie Stahl. Too stressful. The guy is clinically depressed.

Take that 46Zilzal.

boxcar
12-11-2010, 12:31 PM
Charles Krauthammer - Swindle of the year

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120904472.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

Excerpt:

Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 - and House Democrats don't have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years - which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?

This and other reasons I have given are precisely why the Repugs should back out of this deal. If they backed out (and did it right) that would be analogous to someone tossing a bomb into the WH. Obama wouldn't know whether to have a BM or go blind. The Repugs could force the Dems to have a straight up and down vote on extending the current tax rates, thereby forcing all to go on record.

But what I think we're going to end up with is that BO will win big time, the Repugs will lose -- but most importantly America will lose because the gutless, stupid, irresponsible and unprincipled Repugs will have sold us out. Why do I get the feeling it's going to be a very long two years for the Repugs?

Boxcar

Spiderman
12-12-2010, 09:35 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009943102291486.html?m od=rss_opinion_main

Excerpt:

We have not in our lifetimes seen a president in this position. He spent his first year losing the center, which elected him, and his second losing his base, which is supposed to provide his troops. There isn't much left to lose! Which may explain Tuesday's press conference.

Excerpt:

Instead Mr. Obama said, essentially, that he hates the deal he just agreed to, hates the people he made the deal with, and hates even more the people who'll criticize it. His statement was startling in the breadth of its animosity. Republicans are "hostage takers" who worship a "holy grail" of "tax cuts for the wealthy." "That seems to be their central economic doctrine."

Charles Krauthammer Is The Fraud

Excerpt:
It is not every day that Krauthammer is backed into an absurd and dishonest position by his own logic


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/12/charles-krauthammer-is-the-fraud/67867/

boxcar
12-12-2010, 09:52 PM
Charles Krauthammer Is The Fraud

Excerpt:
It is not every day that Krauthammer is backed into an absurd and dishonest position by his own logic


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/12/charles-krauthammer-is-the-fraud/67867/

Hey, Spidey, Shirley U. Jest! Crook may not be a fraud, but he's certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed. I don't know where the Kraut comes down on this deal, but I know where I stand and why. This is a very bad "compromise deal", at which the Repugs should turn up their noses because it stinks really bad. Let the taxes go up and unemployment bennies go down, and then let's wait to see what happens in January.

The Party of Stupid needs to find its backbone and learn how to play hardball. Then let's see who blinks.

Boxcar

JustRalph
12-13-2010, 01:07 AM
Charles Krauthammer Is The Fraud

Excerpt:
It is not every day that Krauthammer is backed into an absurd and dishonest position by his own logic


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/12/charles-krauthammer-is-the-fraud/67867/

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/12/12/are-republicans-backing-another-stimulus

another opine

It is the irony of ironies if you believe one leading economist's characterization of President Obama's tax cut deal. As Republicans prepare to take over the House next month -- having swept to power by railing against reckless spending in Congress -- they are now backing what Mark Zandi calls a second "stimulus."

Zandi, Moody's chief economist, told Fox News's Chris Wallace that even if others aren't using the word to refer to the tax cut agreement between Republicans and President Obama, he is calling it just that.

"It's stimulus in the sense we're providing some additional temporary tax cuts and some additional temporary spending increases, so I'm not sure what the difference is between what we're talking about here and what we did back in early '09," Zandi said on America's Election Headquarters Sunday.



Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/12/12/are-republicans-backing-another-stimulus#ixzz17y9qatz7

Spiderman
12-13-2010, 08:34 AM
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/12/12/are-republicans-backing-another-stimulus

another opine

It is the irony of ironies if you believe one leading economist's characterization of President Obama's tax cut deal. As Republicans prepare to take over the House next month -- having swept to power by railing against reckless spending in Congress -- they are now backing what Mark Zandi calls a second "stimulus."

Zandi, Moody's chief economist, told Fox News's Chris Wallace that even if others aren't using the word to refer to the tax cut agreement between Republicans and President Obama, he is calling it just that.

"It's stimulus in the sense we're providing some additional temporary tax cuts and some additional temporary spending increases, so I'm not sure what the difference is between what we're talking about here and what we did back in early '09," Zandi said on America's Election Headquarters Sunday.



Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/12/12/are-republicans-backing-another-stimulus#ixzz17y9qatz7


The "stimulus" is maintaining the status quo and 'holding the fort' while the miracle of new jobs cascades upon us. Without a plan to reduce deficit spending, it adds 7% to the national debt.

The payroll tax reduction segment should be revised to a business credit that does not impact SSA funding. Senior citizens were ignored in the negotiation.

This afternoon's session of Congress will be interesting.

Spiderman
12-13-2010, 08:51 AM
Hey, Spidey, Shirley U. Jest!

LOL

The Party of Stupid needs to find its backbone and learn how to play hardball. Then let's see who blinks.

That goes to ethics and principle, neither of which you will find much of in politics.

boxcar
12-13-2010, 10:10 AM
Hey, Spidey, Shirley U. Jest!

LOL

The Party of Stupid needs to find its backbone and learn how to play hardball. Then let's see who blinks.

That goes to ethics and principle, neither of which you will find much of in politics.

Tell me about it. Even Newt Gingrich supports this tax "compromise" deal. As far as I'm concerned that says it all. It's for sure a very bad deal when that RINO endorses it.

Boxcar

johnhannibalsmith
12-13-2010, 11:20 AM
Is my computer broken or am I just reading the names wrong... :lol: :lol:

bigmack
12-13-2010, 12:53 PM
He should have spoken to the people while negotiating. Polls indicate that 65% do not want tax breaks for millionaires.
WaPo/ABC has 70% in favor. Where did you get your numbers?

About seven in 10 Americans back the tax deal negotiated last week by President Obama and congressional Republicans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121302373.html?hpid=topnews

boxcar
12-13-2010, 03:27 PM
WaPo/ABC has 70% in favor. Where did you get your numbers?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121302373.html?hpid=topnews

If 7 out of 10 support the tax deal, this country is in worse shape than I even imagined. It appears the nation could be suffering from an epidemic outbreak of mental myopia.

Boxcar

Spiderman
12-13-2010, 03:55 PM
WaPo/ABC has 70% in favor. Where did you get your numbers?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121302373.html?hpid=topnews

I knew it was 65-70% that do not know favor tax breaks to millionaires. Used the lower figure.

Spiderman
12-13-2010, 03:57 PM
Tell me about it. Even Newt Gingrich supports this tax "compromise" deal. As far as I'm concerned that says it all. It's for sure a very bad deal when that RINO endorses it.

Boxcar

Read all about it! Get your link, right here:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/conservatives-attack-tax-deal-as-vote-nears/?hp

boxcar
12-13-2010, 05:10 PM
Read all about it! Get your link, right here:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/conservatives-attack-tax-deal-as-vote-nears/?hp

It really didn't say anything about the Newt but I found Kraut's paragraph revealing:

“Obama is no fool,” Mr. Krauthammer wrote. “While getting Republicans to boost his own re-election chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, Tea Party, this-time-we’re-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility.”

He's saying the same thing I did earlier. The Party of Stupid will actually be helping BO's election chances considerably be voting for this nonsense. This is the only reason BO is "biting his tongue" now (in a manner of speaking) by supporting this in the short term because he fully realizes what the long term benefits will likely be for him. Obama is clearly positioning himself to be in the proverbial win-win situation, no matter what happens with the economy. But how this would play out, in all likelihood, is that extending the status quo will not stimulate the economy, anymore than the current tax rates did the first two years of his term. In this scenario, the Repugs would get socked with a double whammy -- the second one being a smug, "I told you so" by Obama -- meaning that BO will tell Americans that Supply Side Economics doesn't work, so now it's time to double down on Kensyian Economics.

I almost want to say that Americans are caught between a rock (Party of Evil) and hard place (Party of Stupid) -- but if so many Americans want their elected officials to pass this "deal" -- hey...who am I to criticize the blind sheeple as they're being led to slaughter?

Boxcar

Secretariat
12-13-2010, 05:49 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009943102291486.html?m od=rss_opinion_main

Excerpt:

We have not in our lifetimes seen a president in this position. He spent his first year losing the center, which elected him, and his second losing his base, which is supposed to provide his troops. There isn't much left to lose! Which may explain Tuesday's press conference.

Excerpt:

Instead Mr. Obama said, essentially, that he hates the deal he just agreed to, hates the people he made the deal with, and hates even more the people who'll criticize it. His statement was startling in the breadth of its animosity. Republicans are "hostage takers" who worship a "holy grail" of "tax cuts for the wealthy." "That seems to be their central economic doctrine."

Obama has indeed alientated his base. Without a Dem Primary the Repubs should win in 2012. As a Dem I cannot vote for this guy again. He is simply way too far to the right.

boxcar
12-13-2010, 06:27 PM
Obama has indeed alientated his base. Without a Dem Primary the Repubs should win in 2012. As a Dem I cannot vote for this guy again. He is simply way too far to the right.

And I find him tilting way too far to the left. We actually agree on something, i.e. "too far". :D :jump:

Boxcar

NJ Stinks
12-13-2010, 06:37 PM
Obama has indeed alientated his base. Without a Dem Primary the Repubs should win in 2012. As a Dem I cannot vote for this guy again. He is simply way too far to the right.

I won't go that far but he's got two strikes against him. (Public Option was strike one.)

He's fouled off a few pitches too.

boxcar
12-13-2010, 07:02 PM
I won't go that far but he's got two strikes against him. (Public Option was strike one.)

He's fouled off a few pitches too.

And he wouldn't be able to find the strike zone either, even if they moved the mound 90% closer to the plate.

Boxcar